MICHAEL HUMPHREY V. KEN CLARK, No. 10-55248 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL HUMPHREY, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 10-55248 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-04035-GAFDTB v. KEN CLARK, Warden, MEMORANDUM * Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 3, 2012 Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Petitioner-Appellant Michael Humphrey appeals the district court s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. Humphrey argues that he is entitled to equitable tolling of the one-year AEDPA statute of limitations on the basis of his limited mental * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. capacity. After the district court entered judgment in this case, we decided Bills v. Clark, 628 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2010), which provides a framework for determining whether a habeas petitioner is entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations on the basis of a mental impairment. Because the district court did not have the benefit of our decision in Bills, we vacate the judgment and remand to the district court for reconsideration under the Bills framework. VACATED and REMANDED. Page 2 of 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.